alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Ron Highfill [mailto:ronhighfill@grandecom.net] 

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 1:17 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Cc: colorofmoney@wahpost.com

Subject: Re:RIN1210-AB32

Hi,

Read the article by Michelle Singletary in the Dallas paper about ‘Advisers should put you first’. 

Dated 9/13/2015.

I have had an advisor for about 10 years. He sold me a bunch of variable annuities and a few 

private REIT’s. I knew he got paid by selling these to me. The trick is did I trust him to make the 

right decisions for me. In most cases I’m ok with what he did, knowing I will never run out of 

money. Yes, I understand I paid for that but as he told me ‘if you insure your house why should 

you not insure your investments’.

The real hang up I have with advisors is the set up for brokerage accounts. My guy charges 

anywhere from 1.15 to 1.25 to ‘manage’ my account. He gets paid regardless if I make money or 

not. That’s on top of the .5 to 1.0 plus the funds charge. So on average, I don’t make any money 

until I have overcome about 2-3% total overhead. That doesn’t seem right to me. If I lose money 

in the market he should lose money also, or at least not get his fee. There should at least be a 

sliding scale. He gets paid on how well I do. If I make zero or negative then he should not get the 

‘management fee’. If I make 5%, then he should get his management fee. If I make more, then he 

should get more. It should be a sliding scale he gets and not automatic regardless what I get.

For that reason, I do all my stock, mutual fund investing with Fidelity with minimum overhead 

charges. He says I should be happy to pay him for investment advice and I say that is fine as 

long as I make money. He says he can’t guarantee that (which I know), so I moved my brokerage 

account to Fidelity (which I have had on the side of many years), and if I lose money it’s now 

my fault, period.

He’s not happy and always tries to talk me into moving that money back to him but I will never 

do that. 

Would be nice if the ‘model’ was changed but I imagine that will never happen.

Regards,

Ron Highfill
Editorial Note on Part 386
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

§ 386.82 Civil penalties for violations of notices and orders. ( a ) Additional civil penalties are chargeable for violations of notices and orders which are issued under civil forfeiture proceedings pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 521(b). These notices and orders are as follows: ( 1 ) Notice to abate—§ 386.11 (b)(2) and (c)(1)(iv);
( 2 ) Notice to post—§ 386.11(c)(3);
( 3 ) Final order—§ 386.14, § 386.17, § 386.22, and § 386.61; and
( 4 ) Out-of-service order—§ 386.72(b)(1).
( b ) A schedule of these additional penalties is provided in the appendix A to this part. All the penalties are maximums, and discretion will be retained to meet special circumstances by setting penalties for violations of notices and orders, in some cases, at less than the maximum.
( c ) Claims for penalties provided in this section and in the appendix A to this part shall be made through the civil forfeiture proceedings contained in this part. The issues to be decided in such proceedings will be limited to whether violations of notices and orders occurred as claimed and the appropriate penalty for such violations. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to authorize the reopening of a matter already finally adjudicated under this part.
[56 FR 10184, Mar. 11, 1991, as amended at 67 FR 61821, Oct. 2, 2002; 70 FR 28486, May 18, 2005; 77 FR 59826, Oct. 1, 2012]
#### In the Matter of the Application of the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Appellant, to acquire lands of Eben C. Sprague and others, Respondents.

Order appealed from modified by striking therefrom all after the word “ either ” in line two of the decretal part of said order as printed, to the end thereof, and inserting the following: “In this matter as it may be advised, and that, in default thereof, the proceedings shall be deemed abandoned by the petitioner, and on filing an affidavit showing such default, the landowners may enter an order, of course, to that effect, and requiring the petitioner to pay to the landowners their reasonable costs and expenses in the proceeding, to be ascertained by a referee to be appointed by the court at Special Term for that purpose.” Neither party allowed costs of this appeal.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 12, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00300

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF Van L. CRAPPS , Deceased

From the County Court at Law

, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9498

Honorable Mark Cashion , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF JURISDICTION. Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against Van Kevin

Christensen.

It is so ORDERED on October 12, 2022

.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of October, 2022

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAbnormal fault-recovery characteristics of the fault-tolerant multiprocessor uncovered using a new fault-injection methodologyAn investigation was made in AIRLAB of the fault handling performance of the Fault Tolerant MultiProcessor (FTMP). Fault handling errors detected during fault injection experiments were characterized. In these fault injection experiments, the FTMP disabled a working unit instead of the faulted unit once in every 500 faults, on the average. System design weaknesses allow active faults to exercise a part of the fault management software that handles Byzantine or lying faults. Byzantine faults behave such that the faulted unit points to a working unit as the source of errors. The design's problems involve: (1) the design and interface between the simplex error detection hardware and the error processing software, (2) the functional capabilities of the FTMP system bus, and (3) the communication requirements of a multiprocessor architecture. These weak areas in the FTMP's design increase the probability that, for any hardware fault, a good line replacement unit (LRU) is mistakenly disabled by the fault management software.Document ID19910009034Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsPadilla, Peter A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1991Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4218NASA-TM-4218L-16630Accession Number91N18347Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-46-21-05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910009034.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fisher Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q/A), I William W. Krippaehne Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: September 12, 2003

/s/    WILLIAM W. KRIPPAEHNE JR.William W. Krippaehne Jr. President and
Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.327 When must the MRO report medical information gathered in the verification process? ( a ) As the MRO, you must, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, report drug test results and medical information you learned as part of the verification process to third parties without the employee's consent if you determine, in your reasonable medical judgment, that: ( 1 ) The information is likely to result in the employee being determined to be medically unqualified under an applicable DOT agency regulation; or
( 2 ) The information indicates that continued performance by the employee of his or her safety-sensitive function is likely to pose a significant safety risk.
( b ) The third parties to whom you are authorized to provide information by this section include the employer, a physician or other health care provider responsible for determining the medical qualifications of the employee under an applicable DOT agency safety regulation, a SAP evaluating the employee as part of the return to duty process (see § 40.293(g)), a DOT agency, or the National Transportation Safety Board in the course of an accident investigation.
( c ) The MRO must not report such medical information using the CCF. Instead, the MRO must provide the information in a separate written communication (*e.g.,* letter, secure email). The information must state the specific nature of the MRO's safety concern (*e.g.,* the effects of a medication the employee is taking, the employee's underlying medical condition that the employee disclosed to the MRO).
( d ) If the law of a foreign country (*e.g.,* Canada) prohibits you from providing medical information to the employer, you may comply with that prohibition.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 27650, May 2, 2023]
Aug. 28: U.S. Military Conducts Airstrikes Against ISIL Near Mosul Dam
 By U.S. Central Command News Release
  August 28, 2014 Release #20140831FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **TAMPA, Fla., Aug. 28, 2014 --** U.S. military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in support of Iraqi security force operations, using fighter aircraft to conduct five airstrikes in the vicinity of the Mosul Dam. The strikes destroyed an ISIL Humvee, a tank, four armed vehicles, an ISIL construction vehicle and severely damaged an ISIL checkpoint. All aircraft exited the strike areas safely. The strikes were conducted under authority to support Iraqi security force and Kurdish defense force operations, as well as to protect critical infrastructure, U.S. personnel and facilities, and support humanitarian efforts. Since Aug. 8, U.S. Central Command has conducted a total of 106 airstrikes across Iraq.
Filed 10/16/07 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2007 ND 151

Nicholas Patrick Kram, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

Director, North Dakota

Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20070102

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Frank L. Racek, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jesse N. Lange (on brief), Aaland Law Office, 415 11th St. S., P.O. Box 1817, Fargo, ND 58107-1817, for petitioner and appellant.

Andrew Moraghan (on brief), Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 500 N. 9th St., Bismarck, ND 58501-4509, for respondent and appellee.

Kram v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp.

No. 20070102

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Nicholas Kram appealed from a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation Order of Suspension, which disqualified his commercial driving privileges for one year under N.D.C.C. § 39-06.2-10(7).

[¶2]Kram argues he does not have a “conviction” within the meaning of N.D.C.C. § 39-06.2-10(7).  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).  Bienek v. Dep’t of Transp., 2007 ND 117, 736 N.W.2d 492.

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom
YourRoleasaRegulatorIRequItoryAuthorityndPrinciplesWhatrolesdoyouplay?Whatinfluencesus?American Regulatory Systems I Pride

in democratic
form
of government I. Demand

& expect many services I Distrust government

& suspicious

of the bureaucracy

that provides

the services What

is
a regulator? I Definition:

The member
ala government agency that ensures cornpllarice

with laws, regulations

and establlsf7ed
ru/es TheAmertcan Heritage Dictionary

of the English Ianguage, Third Edition,

© 1992 I Purpose:

To ensure compliance I Why?
To obtain

a desired outcome Regulation I To regulate requires: I Public trust I Consent

of the regulated I Duty

2Howdoweregua±e?IPromulgaterulespolicies,guidelines,proceduresIDbervationIInspection,investigationAnalysisIEvaluationIDecision-MakingIEducationIEnforcementIInfonnalvs.FormalIOther???HowweareviewedBytheindustry-IPolice——IConsultant-IEnemyBytheadvocatesIPoliceIAdvocateEnemyBythepublic17??BytheconsumerIPoliceIAdvocateIEnemyPrinciplesofRegulation2Important regulatory principles....

4. I We are responsible

to all the public. I We are involved

in
a system

of law I of principles I of reason I of equity I of values Where

do we get our authority? Sources

of Authority I Congress and/or State Legislatures I Create agencies

to enforce laws I License
and Regulate industries through laws I May give agencies

the authorJty

to enact regulations (rules)

to carry out the legislative intent and enforce
the laws I Create public policyDHFS’s Regulation

& Licensing Mission Statement I 0/IFS will develop

a reasonable
and consistent system

of regulation

and licensing which effectivelyI encourages complianceI maintains accountabilityI protects public health

& safetyI fosters quality

oflife i suppofts consumer
awe reness responsibility

and satisfaction Compliance? I Who decides? I What level? How do we enforce? I Evaluation

of effectiveness I Rules I Inspections I Enforcement I Waiver

of rules! requirements I PolicyTP:

#1: Be lamiliar with your program’s
laws #2: Know the rules. #3; Check the porcies! You as the investigator qc”

I What are you doing? I For what purpose? Communication Three basic styles: I Aggressive I Passive I Assertive

6AçjgressiveStyleII’vegotrightsbutyoudon’tEveryoneshouldbelikeIDomineering,bullyingINeverwrongmeIClosed-mindedAggressiveStyleIPoorlistenerIInterruptsIPutsothersdownIRigidposturePassiveStyle--L*—..-IOthershavemore.rightsthanIdoIDoesn’tmakewavesIAlwaysagreesIApologeticI“Clamsup”((11iJ

‘hICan’tmakedecisionsAssertive Style

I

I have rights and so do others 1 Believes
sell and others are valuable I Effective, active listener I Nonjudgmental I Decisive Assertive Style

I States limits and expectations I Trusts self and others— is confident I Flexible, versatile I Fair and just, consistent

8
1210-AB32-2-1251.html[7/24/2015 9:42:43 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvt-yyjg

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1746

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Deborah Johnston

Address:

17775 Cady Rd.

Adams Center, 13606

Email: goatherder@frontiernet.net

Phone: (315) 583-6444

General Comment

We can manage our own IRA's, 401k's, pensions and the like just fine without government intrusion. We don't

 appreciate the government's meddling through regulation in this, and so many other areas of our lives!!!!
Docket: EBSA-2010-0007 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in 

Retirement Plans 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0007-0001 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options 

Document: EBSA-2010-0007-DRAFT-0006 

Comment on FR Doc # N/A 

Submitter Information 

Name: Gary Wayne Frazer 

Address: 

Scottsdale, AZ, 

General Comment 

The Social Security Act was to provide this same benefit to all legal citizens of the United States. 

The Federal Govt. has abused this account by using it for other purposes; now, it is in jeopardy of 

being depleted. Lack of Social Security payments to be able to adequately support the elderly in 

retirement has created the need for additional financial vehicles such as 401k funds. These are 

privately managed funds and need to stay that way. We DO NOT WANT the Federal Govt. to steal 

our private funds for public purposes and waste as they have with the current Social Security 

dollars. This is a bad idea and smacks of the highest degree of Socialism. The first debt to be paid 

back should be Social Security. Also, stop payments to illegal aliens!! We owe them nothing. Stop 

this proposal before it goes any further! 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: February 17, 2010 

Received: February 03, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80a8cc28 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 2/17/2010
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Manuel Alba, Press and Communications (202) 376-8582. 

Dated: August 6, 2007. 

Kenneth L. Marcus, 

Staff Director. 

[FR Doc. 07-3896 Filed 8-6-07; 3:42 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
§ 578.4 Definitions. All terms used in this part that are defined in sections 30102, 30501, 32101, 32702, 32901, and 33101 of Title 49 of the United States Code are used as defined in the appropriate statute. *Administrator* means the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
*Civil penalty* means any non-criminal penalty, fine, or other sanction that: ( 1 ) Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law, or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; and
( 2 ) Is assessed, compromised, collected, or enforced by NHTSA pursuant to Federal law.
*NHTSA* means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
*Person* means any individual, corporation, company, limited liability company, trust, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity.
*Respondent* means any person charged with liability for a civil penalty for a violation of sections 30112, 30115, 30117 through 30122, 30123(a), 30125(c), 30127, 30141 through 30147, or 30166 of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation prescribed under any of those sections.
[62 FR 5169, Feb. 4, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 81419, Dec. 26, 2000; 81 FR 10528, Mar. 1, 2016]
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Neil Lyons, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
presented in this report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 13, 2006



/s/ C. Neil LyonsC. Neil Lyons Chief Financial
Officer
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Group 1 Software, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert S. Bowen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

|   |   |   |                                 |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Robert S. Bowen                  |
|   |   |   |                                      |
|   |   |   | Chief Executive OfficerJune 30, 2003 |

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Group 1 Software, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Funston, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

|   |   |   |                                 |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Mark Funston                     |
|   |   |   |                                      |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial OfficerJune 30, 2003 |

61